Historicity's Problems And Theudas As Our Only Candidate; 4 Genuine Historical Identifications

[mlinssen]

I'm not interested in playing games - I'm interested in moving the issue of christian origins forward. That requires historical arguments. Hence I'm not interested in being distracted by arguments that resolve around supposed, maybe, probably, historical Josephan characters. That's to shortchange or sabotage the debate over christian origins.

Nonsense. That requires sound reasoning, convincing and compelling arguments of any kind. There is no reason at all to assume that everything surrounding Christian origins has a historical basis, or even half of it, or even a handful

Stories are based on other stories

With regards to this particular matter though: why is there a Simon of Cyrene, why and how does he link to Aristobulus II, and his sons Alexander and Antigonus?
Why is only one name the same?
Why are the others different?
Why? How? What's the point?

[maryhelena]

I'm not interested in playing games - I'm interested in moving the issue of christian origins forward. That requires historical arguments. Hence I'm not interested in being distracted by arguments that resolve around supposed, maybe, probably, historical Josephan characters. That's to shortchange or sabotage the debate over christian origins.

Nonsense.

Therefore.......discussion would be a waste of my time....

[neilgodfrey]

Oh.. I did not notice any answers to the questions I asked you. A one sided questioning is not debate....

I wasn't thinking we were debating at all. In my mind I thought we were discussing through exchanges of ideas. That's what I was aiming for, at any rate. When one party has their say the other party may respond to some aspect of what was said rather than everything in order to keep the discussion at a manageable level as they see it.

[maryhelena]

Oh.. I did not notice any answers to the questions I asked you. A one sided questioning is not debate....

I wasn't thinking we were debating at all. In my mind I thought we were discussing through exchanges of ideas. That's what I was aiming for, at any rate. When one party has their say the other party may respond to some aspect of what was said rather than everything in order to keep the discussion at a manageable level as they see it.

Well.... whatever this exchange was about it was one sided with you throwing questions at me yet ignoring my questions to you. Poor show, Neil.

[neilgodfrey]

Oh.. I did not notice any answers to the questions I asked you. A one sided questioning is not debate....

I wasn't thinking we were debating at all. In my mind I thought we were discussing through exchanges of ideas. That's what I was aiming for, at any rate. When one party has their say the other party may respond to some aspect of what was said rather than everything in order to keep the discussion at a manageable level as they see it.

Well.... whatever this exchange was about it was one sided with you throwing questions at me yet ignoring my questions to you. Poor show, Neil.

Okay -- I didn't know how to answer some of your questions profitably but I did answer what I took to be your main one: "So?" But I can see how not responding directly to all of your questions can make the exchange feel like a waste of time for you.

You wrote:

I have concluded that the gospel story of Simon from Cyrene and his two sons, Alexander and Rufus, is a reflection upon the historical figures of Aristobulus II and his two sons, Alexander and Antigonus....

So .....??

Why no comment on what I have concluded if you ''don't see any difference in that respect between what you conclude and what I conclude.''..

Did you find what I concluded interesting ? How does what I have concluded regarding Simon from Cyrene and his two sons, Alexander and Rufus - that these three literary figures are reflecting the historical figures of Aristobulus II and his sons, Alexander and Antigonus. How does what I have concluded add to what you yourself have concluded ?

Yes and no. The problem I had was that I could not see how an author would write about a man he called a Cyrenian carrying Jesus' cross and having two sons somewhere "off-stage" and base that person on Aristobulus II who had two sons, Alexander and Antigonous. Simon in the story is not crucified and does not die at all as far as the story goes; nor do his two sons, Alexander and Rufus, die in the narrative. So how can we establish any imaginative link with Aristobulus II, Alexander and Antigonus? I don't see any link at all part from one of the sons being named Alexander.

I don't see how identifying the three names of Simon, Alexander and Rufus with those three (Aristobulus II, Alexander and Antigonus) adds any meaning or interpretative value to the gospel narrative.

[maryhelena]

Oh.. I did not notice any answers to the questions I asked you. A one sided questioning is not debate....

I wasn't thinking we were debating at all. In my mind I thought we were discussing through exchanges of ideas. That's what I was aiming for, at any rate. When one party has their say the other party may respond to some aspect of what was said rather than everything in order to keep the discussion at a manageable level as they see it.

Well.... whatever this exchange was about it was one sided with you throwing questions at me yet ignoring my questions to you. Poor show, Neil.

Okay -- I didn't know how to answer some of your questions profitably but I did answer what I took to be your main one: "So?" But I can see how not responding directly to all of your questions can make the exchange feel like a waste of time for you.

You wrote:

I have concluded that the gospel story of Simon from Cyrene and his two sons, Alexander and Rufus, is a reflection upon the historical figures of Aristobulus II and his two sons, Alexander and Antigonus....

So .....??

Why no comment on what I have concluded if you ''don't see any difference in that respect between what you conclude and what I conclude.''..

Did you find what I concluded interesting ? How does what I have concluded regarding Simon from Cyrene and his two sons, Alexander and Rufus - that these three literary figures are reflecting the historical figures of Aristobulus II and his sons, Alexander and Antigonus. How does what I have concluded add to what you yourself have concluded ?

Yes and no. The problem I had was that I could not see how an author would write about a man he called a Cyrenian carrying Jesus' cross and having two sons somewhere "off-stage" and base that person on Aristobulus II who had two sons, Alexander and Antigonous. Simon in the story is not crucified and does not die at all as far as the story goes; nor do his two sons, Alexander and Rufus, die in the narrative. So how can we establish any imaginative link with Aristobulus II, Alexander and Antigonus? I don't see any link at all part from one of the sons being named Alexander.

ah - I see you deleted your original reply post - (to which I did reply but it failed to post re you had your deleted post).

Why the connection between Simon from Cyrene and his two sons to Aristobulus II and his two sons?

Context: crucifixion. Simon carried the cross. Gospel story is fiction re no historical Jesus figure. History? A historical man connected to a crucifixion, an execution by Roman agents, a man with two sons.

History:

Josephus states that Mark Antony beheaded Antigonus (Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8–9). Roman historian Cassius Dio says that he was crucified and records in his Roman History: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him."[6] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king."[7]

Antigonus II Mattathias

(Josephus also tells a story about a man with two sons - the two sons of Judas the Galilean being crucified.)

Two crucifixion stories that relate to a man connected to crucifixion. A man with two sons. Turn the page - or click on Wikipedia - and history does relate the story of a historical man, a man with two sons - both sons executed via Roman agents. Aristobulus II and his two sons.

By all means identify another historical man connected to a crucifixion by Roman agents; a man with two sons. I'm all ears.

viewtopic.php?t=1274

I don't see how identifying the three names of Simon, Alexander and Rufus with those three (Aristobulus II, Alexander and Antigonus) adds any meaning or interpretative value to the gospel narrative.

The proposed identification allows Hasmonean history to be center stage in an investigation into the origins of the gospel Jesus story.

''Dion Cassius says, 'Antony now gave the Kingdom to a certain Herod, and having stretched Antigonus on the cross and scourged him, which had never been done before to a king by the Romans, he put him to death'. The sympathies of the masses for the crucified king of Judah, the heroic son of so many heroic ancestors, and the legends growing, in time, out of this historical nucleus, became, perhaps, the source from which Paul and the evangelists preached Jesus as the crucified king of Judea.'' (History of the Hebrew's Second Commonwealth, 1880, Cincinnati, page 206)

Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise (1819-1900), scholar and novelist.

What is it Neil, about Hasmonean history, that fails to resonate with you, that fails as a source able to offer insights into the gospel Jesus story? Jewish nationalism? Much safer I suppose to concentrate on post 70 c.e. when Jewish nationalism has been kicked sideways by Rome.

[mlinssen]

Oh.. I did not notice any answers to the questions I asked you. A one sided questioning is not debate....

I wasn't thinking we were debating at all. In my mind I thought we were discussing through exchanges of ideas. That's what I was aiming for, at any rate. When one party has their say the other party may respond to some aspect of what was said rather than everything in order to keep the discussion at a manageable level as they see it.

Well.... whatever this exchange was about it was one sided with you throwing questions at me yet ignoring my questions to you. Poor show, Neil.

Okay -- I didn't know how to answer some of your questions profitably but I did answer what I took to be your main one: "So?" But I can see how not responding directly to all of your questions can make the exchange feel like a waste of time for you.

You wrote:

I have concluded that the gospel story of Simon from Cyrene and his two sons, Alexander and Rufus, is a reflection upon the historical figures of Aristobulus II and his two sons, Alexander and Antigonus....

So .....??

Why no comment on what I have concluded if you ''don't see any difference in that respect between what you conclude and what I conclude.''..

Did you find what I concluded interesting ? How does what I have concluded regarding Simon from Cyrene and his two sons, Alexander and Rufus - that these three literary figures are reflecting the historical figures of Aristobulus II and his sons, Alexander and Antigonus. How does what I have concluded add to what you yourself have concluded ?

Yes and no. The problem I had was that I could not see how an author would write about a man he called a Cyrenian carrying Jesus' cross and having two sons somewhere "off-stage" and base that person on Aristobulus II who had two sons, Alexander and Antigonous. Simon in the story is not crucified and does not die at all as far as the story goes; nor do his two sons, Alexander and Rufus, die in the narrative. So how can we establish any imaginative link with Aristobulus II, Alexander and Antigonus? I don't see any link at all part from one of the sons being named Alexander.

ah - I see you deleted your original reply post - (to which I did reply but it failed to post re you had your deleted post).

Why the connection between Simon from Cyrene and his two sons to Aristobulus II and his two sons?

Context: crucifixion. Simon carried the cross. Gospel story is fiction re no historical Jesus figure. History? A historical man connected to a crucifixion, an execution by Roman agents, a man with two sons.

History:

Josephus states that Mark Antony beheaded Antigonus (Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8–9). Roman historian Cassius Dio says that he was crucified and records in his Roman History: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him."[6] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king."[7]

Antigonus II Mattathias

(Josephus also tells a story about a man with two sons - the two sons of Judas the Galilean being crucified.)

Two crucifixion stories that relate to a man connected to crucifixion. A man with two sons. Turn the page - or click on Wikipedia - and history does relate the story of a historical man, a man with two sons - both sons executed via Roman agents. Aristobulus II and his two sons.

By all means identify another historical man connected to a crucifixion by Roman agents; a man with two sons. I'm all ears.

viewtopic.php?t=1274

I don't see how identifying the three names of Simon, Alexander and Rufus with those three (Aristobulus II, Alexander and Antigonus) adds any meaning or interpretative value to the gospel narrative.

The proposed identification allows Hasmonean history to be center stage in an investigation into the origins of the gospel Jesus story.

''Dion Cassius says, 'Antony now gave the Kingdom to a certain Herod, and having stretched Antigonus on the cross and scourged him, which had never been done before to a king by the Romans, he put him to death'. The sympathies of the masses for the crucified king of Judah, the heroic son of so many heroic ancestors, and the legends growing, in time, out of this historical nucleus, became, perhaps, the source from which Paul and the evangelists preached Jesus as the crucified king of Judea.'' (History of the Hebrew's Second Commonwealth, 1880, Cincinnati, page 206)

Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise (1819-1900), scholar and novelist.

What is it Neil, about Hasmonean history, that fails to resonate with you, that fails as a source able to offer insights into the gospel Jesus story? Jewish nationalism? Much safer I suppose to concentrate on post 70 c.e. when Jewish nationalism has been kicked sideways by Rome.

So let me get this wafer-thin assumption clear please

• Aristobolus II - crucified
• Aristobolus II's son Alexander - crucified
• Aristobolus II's other son Antigonus - crucified

None of these are called Simon nor Rufus, but we have 1 Alexander - that's a 33% score, and not even for the main character

• Simon of Cyrene - not crucified
• Simon's son Alexander - not crucified
• Simon's son Rufus - not crucified

These are all from Cyrene, allegedly, and the three above are neither

So we have 3 crucified people of a certain time and place, of which one shares the name with 3 not-crucified people that belong to an entirely different time and place - and you go off gloating and cheering about your marvelously concocted conspiracy theory that fits so very perfectly and o gosh golly how can everyine else be so thick and stupid not to see that?

And how about the how and why of any of it, what's the value in this so wafer-thin correlation that even under a microscope is hardly visible?
Where is your motive? If this is all the evidence you got, you'll have to work really, really hard to even come close to being any convincing in any way

What a terrible waste of time, maryhelena

[maryhelena]

I wasn't thinking we were debating at all. In my mind I thought we were discussing through exchanges of ideas. That's what I was aiming for, at any rate. When one party has their say the other party may respond to some aspect of what was said rather than everything in order to keep the discussion at a manageable level as they see it.

Well.... whatever this exchange was about it was one sided with you throwing questions at me yet ignoring my questions to you. Poor show, Neil.

Okay -- I didn't know how to answer some of your questions profitably but I did answer what I took to be your main one: "So?" But I can see how not responding directly to all of your questions can make the exchange feel like a waste of time for you.

You wrote:

I have concluded that the gospel story of Simon from Cyrene and his two sons, Alexander and Rufus, is a reflection upon the historical figures of Aristobulus II and his two sons, Alexander and Antigonus....

So .....??

Why no comment on what I have concluded if you ''don't see any difference in that respect between what you conclude and what I conclude.''..

Did you find what I concluded interesting ? How does what I have concluded regarding Simon from Cyrene and his two sons, Alexander and Rufus - that these three literary figures are reflecting the historical figures of Aristobulus II and his sons, Alexander and Antigonus. How does what I have concluded add to what you yourself have concluded ?

Yes and no. The problem I had was that I could not see how an author would write about a man he called a Cyrenian carrying Jesus' cross and having two sons somewhere "off-stage" and base that person on Aristobulus II who had two sons, Alexander and Antigonous. Simon in the story is not crucified and does not die at all as far as the story goes; nor do his two sons, Alexander and Rufus, die in the narrative. So how can we establish any imaginative link with Aristobulus II, Alexander and Antigonus? I don't see any link at all part from one of the sons being named Alexander.

ah - I see you deleted your original reply post - (to which I did reply but it failed to post re you had your deleted post).

Why the connection between Simon from Cyrene and his two sons to Aristobulus II and his two sons?

Context: crucifixion. Simon carried the cross. Gospel story is fiction re no historical Jesus figure. History? A historical man connected to a crucifixion, an execution by Roman agents, a man with two sons.

History:

Josephus states that Mark Antony beheaded Antigonus (Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8–9). Roman historian Cassius Dio says that he was crucified and records in his Roman History: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him."[6] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king."[7]

Antigonus II Mattathias

(Josephus also tells a story about a man with two sons - the two sons of Judas the Galilean being crucified.)

Two crucifixion stories that relate to a man connected to crucifixion. A man with two sons. Turn the page - or click on Wikipedia - and history does relate the story of a historical man, a man with two sons - both sons executed via Roman agents. Aristobulus II and his two sons.

By all means identify another historical man connected to a crucifixion by Roman agents; a man with two sons. I'm all ears.

viewtopic.php?t=1274

I don't see how identifying the three names of Simon, Alexander and Rufus with those three (Aristobulus II, Alexander and Antigonus) adds any meaning or interpretative value to the gospel narrative.

The proposed identification allows Hasmonean history to be center stage in an investigation into the origins of the gospel Jesus story.

''Dion Cassius says, 'Antony now gave the Kingdom to a certain Herod, and having stretched Antigonus on the cross and scourged him, which had never been done before to a king by the Romans, he put him to death'. The sympathies of the masses for the crucified king of Judah, the heroic son of so many heroic ancestors, and the legends growing, in time, out of this historical nucleus, became, perhaps, the source from which Paul and the evangelists preached Jesus as the crucified king of Judea.'' (History of the Hebrew's Second Commonwealth, 1880, Cincinnati, page 206)

Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise (1819-1900), scholar and novelist.

What is it Neil, about Hasmonean history, that fails to resonate with you, that fails as a source able to offer insights into the gospel Jesus story? Jewish nationalism? Much safer I suppose to concentrate on post 70 c.e. when Jewish nationalism has been kicked sideways by Rome.

So let me get this wafer-thin assumption clear please

Aristobolus II - crucified
Aristobolus II's son Alexander - crucified
Aristobolus II's other son Antigonus - crucified

None of these are called Simon nor Rufus, but we have 1 Alexander - that's a 33% score, and not even for the main character

Simon of Cyrene - not crucified
Simon's son Alexander - not crucified
Simon's son Rufus - not crucified

These are all from Cyrene, allegedly, and the three above are neither

So we have 3 crucified people of which one shares the name with 3 not-crucified people - and you go off gloating and cheering about your marvelously concocted conspiracy theory that fits so very perfectly and o gosh golly how can everyine else be so thick and stupid not to see that?

And how about the how and why of any of it, what's the value in this so wafer-thin correlation that even under a microscope is hardly visible?
Where is your motive? If this is all the evidence you got, you'll have to work really, really hard to even come close to being any convincing in any way

What a terrible waste of time, maryhelena

My time - and it's been well spent.....

[mlinssen]

My time - and it's been well spent.....

Antigonus was beheaded, according to Josephus

http://pace.hypervisions.it/york/york/s ... yout=split

At this time Herod, now he had got Jerusalem under his power, carried off all the royal ornaments, and spoiled the wealthy men of what they had gotten; and when, by these means, he had heaped together a great quantity of silver and gold, he gave it all to Antony, and his friends that were about him. He also slew forty-five of the principal men of Antigonus's party, and set guards at the gates of the city, that nothing might be carried out together with their dead bodies. They also searched the dead, and whatsoever was found, either of silver or gold, or other treasure, it was carried to the king; nor was there any end of the miseries he brought upon them; and this distress was in part occasioned by the covetousness of the prince regent, who was still in want of more, and in part by the Sabbatic year, which was still going on, and forced the country to lie still uncultivated, since we are forbidden to sow our land in that year. Now when Antony had received Antigonus as his captive, he determined to keep him against his triumph; but when he heard that the nation grew seditious, and that, out of their hatred to Herod, they continued to bear good-will to Antigonus, he resolved to behead him at Antioch, for otherwise the Jews could no way be brought to be quiet. And Strabo of Cappadocia attests to what I have said, when he thus speaks: "Antony ordered Antigonus the Jew to be brought to Antioch, and there to be beheaded. And this Antony seems to me to have been the very first man who beheaded a king, as supposing he could no other way bend the minds of the Jews so as to receive Herod, whom he had made king in his stead; for by no torments could they he forced to call him king, so great a fondness they had for their former king; so he thought that this dishonorable death would diminish the value they had for Antigonus's memory, and at the same time would diminish the hatred they bare to Herod." Thus far Strabo.

Alexander was beheaded

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_of_Judaea

Three years later, in 49 BC, Caesar's Civil War broke out, and Julius Caesar set Alexander's father Aristobulus II free, and sent him to Judaea to further his interests there. He was poisoned on the journey, and Alexander, who was preparing to support him, was seized at the command of Pompey, and beheaded at Antioch

Aristobolus II was poisoned

http://pace.hypervisions.it/york/york/s ... yout=split

183 NOW, upon the flight of Pompey and of the senate beyond the Ionian Sea, Caesar got Rome and the empire under his power, and released Aristobulus from his bonds. He also committed two legions to him, and sent him in haste into Syria, as hoping that by his means he should easily conquer that country, and the parts adjoining to Judea. But envy prevented any effect of Aristobulus's alacrity, and the hopes of Caesar; for he was taken off by poison given him by those of Pompey's party; and, for a long while, he had not so much as a burial vouchsafed him in his own country; but his dead body lay [above ground], preserved in honey, until it was sent to the Jews by Antony, in order to be buried in the royal sepulchers

Do you have a thread somewhere where you lay out a few of the details?

[neilgodfrey]

Why the connection between Simon from Cyrene and his two sons to Aristobulus II and his two sons?

Context: crucifixion. Simon carried the cross. Gospel story is fiction re no historical Jesus figure. History? A historical man connected to a crucifixion, an execution by Roman agents, a man with two sons.

Okay, but that doesn't answer my question. How does such a comparison contribute to the message of the gospel? How does it help us interpret or understand the story in the Gospel of Mark any better?

History:

Josephus states that Mark Antony beheaded Antigonus (Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8–9). Roman historian Cassius Dio says that he was crucified and records in his Roman History: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him."[6] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king."[7]

Antigonus II Mattathias

(Josephus also tells a story about a man with two sons - the two sons of Judas the Galilean being crucified.)

Yes, but again, that doesn't answer my question. Alexander and Rufus in the Gospel of Mark were not crucified. Nor was their father. None of those three figures in the Gospel of Mark was executed by any means.

Two crucifixion stories that relate to a man connected to crucifixion. A man with two sons. Turn the page - or click on Wikipedia - and history does relate the story of a historical man, a man with two sons - both sons executed via Roman agents. Aristobulus II and his two sons.

Again, you seem to be avoiding my question. How does a historical narrative of three persons being killed by Romans add any meaning or help us understand in a better way the story in the gospel about three men who were not hunted by the Romans?

By all means identify another historical man connected to a crucifixion by Roman agents; a man with two sons. I'm all ears.

Josephus talks of thousands being crucified by Romans but what meaning does that add to the story about a father of two sons carrying a cross for Jesus?

I don't see how identifying the three names of Simon, Alexander and Rufus with those three (Aristobulus II, Alexander and Antigonus) adds any meaning or interpretative value to the gospel narrative.

The proposed identification allows Hasmonean history to be center stage in an investigation into the origins of the gospel Jesus story.

Can you explain how it allows Hasmonean history to be moved centre stage in the origin of the gospel story? What is the actual connection that helps us understand the gospel story in a more meaningful or significant way? The gospel story has a father carrying a cross in the service of the Romans who are in the process of executing Jesus. Neither that father nor his sons according to the story suffer in any way at the hands of the Romans. How does a historical account of a father and two sons who are killed by Romans help us see the Gospel narrative in a more meaningful way? What is the message that we can read into the gospel from the perspective of the historical persons you are speaking about?

''Dion Cassius says, 'Antony now gave the Kingdom to a certain Herod, and having stretched Antigonus on the cross and scourged him, which had never been done before to a king by the Romans, he put him to death'. The sympathies of the masses for the crucified king of Judah, the heroic son of so many heroic ancestors, and the legends growing, in time, out of this historical nucleus, became, perhaps, the source from which Paul and the evangelists preached Jesus as the crucified king of Judea.'' (History of the Hebrew's Second Commonwealth, 1880, Cincinnati, page 206)Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise (1819-1900), scholar and novelist.

But what does that extract have to do with Simon of Cyrene, father of Alexander and Rufus, in the Gospel of Mark?

What is it Neil, about Hasmonean history, that fails to resonate with you, that fails as a source able to offer insights into the gospel Jesus story? Jewish nationalism? Much safer I suppose to concentrate on post 70 c.e. when Jewish nationalism has been kicked sideways by Rome.

I do not reject the relevance of Hasmonean history as you here infer. I thought I had made that clear by now. I have even in these recent discussions attempted to point out to you that I do indeed see a relevance of Jewish history to the gospel story.

But if the connection to a historical background does not add any particular meaning or interpretative layer to the gospel narrative then I cannot see how it has any relevance to the gospel narrative.

So how is our understanding of the (fictional) narrative of Simon of Cyrene and his two sons enhanced in some way by the events of a father and his two sons being killed by Romans?